Blog Stats

Flag Counter since 20091011

Hit Count Since 20110428

Archive for April, 2012

Republicans want to kill grandma.
Republicans want to kill sick people.
Republicans want poor people to starve and die.
Republicans want blacks dead or enslaved.
Republicans want hispanics imprisoned or gone.
Republicans want the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer.
Republicans want to poison the water and destroy the land and torture puppies (before Barack Obama gets a chance to eat them).
(Photo courtesy of NOBAMA.com)

We’ve heard it all before. The outrageously outraged hate-filled emotionalist attacks. The lie-filled over-the-top propaganda designed to keep the brainwashed in line. The absolutely absurd claims by the radical Leftists in Congress and the White House and in mainstream media. Karl, of Patterico’s Pontifications and Hot Air, has a linktastic article of Congressional Democrats making many outrageous and dishonest claims about Republicans very much in line with the above lies about Republicans. And do read his linktastic article at either Hot Air or Patterico’s Pontifications. He completely destroys two WaPo liars’ radical, extreme Leftist, lie-filled, hyper-partisan accusations (such as the fact they ignored the far Left Democrats throwing centrist Democrats out of office for being too centrist and not Leftist enough during this Primary season).

*Important sidebar: Republican does not equal Conservative. And Republican Office-holder most definitely does not equal Conservative. As multiple years of surveys show. Grass-roots self-declared Conservatives and Moderates both agree by overwhelming majorities that the Republican Leadership is to the Left of and out of touch with the Conservative base, while a plurality of self-declared Liberals falsely believe the Republican Leadership represents Conservatism.

As I noted previously, a study proving what Conservatives already know, that Conservatives understand Liberals but Liberals don’t understand Conservatives, has given some insights to this phenomenon. Quoting the above-linked Tina Korbe’s explanation provided by one of the researchers:

Haidt says conservatives speak a broader and more encompassing language of six moral values, while liberals focus on a narrow subset of those values.

This is very true. The political Left has a very narrow view on nearly everything, while the political Right has a much broader, far more encompassing view. And the political Left are, more often than not, incapable of expanding their view, if even to try to understand Conservatives.

I have previously quoted Congressman Colonel Davy Crockett multiple times, most recently in my pwnage of the historically illiterate Leftists Perry Hood and Molly. No very brief quote of Davy Crockett’s words will do him justice, so do read the entire multi-paragraph quote. But for a very brief and absolutely incomplete quote:

“I began: “Well, friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates, and—”

“Yes, I know you; you are Colonel Crockett. I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine. I shall not vote for you again.”

“This was a sockdologer. I had been making up my mind that he was one of those churlish fellows who care for nobody but themselves, and take bluntness for independence. I had seen enough of them to know there is a way to reach them, and was satisfied that if I could get him to talk to me I would soon have him straight. But this was entirely a different bundle of sticks. He knew me, had voted for me before, and did not intend to do it again. Something must be the matter; I could not imagine what it was.

“I had been making up my mind that he was one of those churlish fellows who care for nobody but themselves, and take bluntness for independence.” Sound familiar? Like all the things Leftists say about Republicans, Conservatives, and Libertarians? Why yes, yes it does. Does it entice you to actually read and understand his words? If you’re a historically illiterate hyper-partisan Leftist like Perry Hood or Molly, no. But if you’re interested in facts, histo-facts, the Constitution, the Declaration, and Truth, then it should. Liberals absolutely hate when Conservatives and Libertarians reference the Declaration, the Constitution, the words of the Founders and Framers in order to destroy Liberal talking points and agenda items. Liberals automatically hand-wave Conservatives and Libertarians as “one of those churlish fellows who care for nobody but themselves, and take bluntness for independence,” just as Congressman Colonel Davy Crockett had admitted he wanted to do. But, unlike Liberals, Congressman Colonel Davy Crockett was honest enough to actually pay attention and learn the errors of his ways. And then, to work to correct his errors.

It is a documented fact that Conservatives are much more generous than Liberals in voluntarily contributing their time and hard-earned money to help the aged and infirm, the hungry, the sick and disabled, the youth, and similarly “downtrodden” folk. “Religious” Conservatives are more generous than “non-religious” Conservatives; likewise, “religious” Liberals are more generous than “non-religious” Liberals.

Kristof admits to being “unhappy with my findings,” echoing sentiments from the researcher Brooks:

“When I started doing research on charity,” Mr. Brooks said, “I expected to find that political liberals – who, I believed, genuinely cared more about others than conservatives did – would turn out to be the most privately charitable people. So when my early findings led me to the opposite conclusion, I assumed I had made some sort of technical error. I re-ran analyses. I got new data. Nothing worked. In the end, I had no option but to change my views.”

Other findings from the data:

Follow the link to find the other findings. But be warned, Liberals will absolutely not like the other findings. They absolutely destroy the Leftist propaganda, and destroy Crockett’s self-admitted wrong belief. Across the board, Conservatives are clearly more generous and more personally involved than Liberals. And there is that Personal Responsibility thing again, something Liberals severely lack and something Conservatives have in spades. For more information, a simple Google search provides over 1.6 million results, including a New York Times opinion piece on page 1 of the search, written by an author who was taken aback by his findings proving Liberals are less charitable than those evil, greedy, selfish Conservatives.

The reason for the confusion is as simple for logical people to see as it is baffling for Liberals. It is also why Liberals absolutely believe the propagandastic lies about Conservatives promulgated by the radical Left. And it is something Crockett learned and subsequently expressed far more eloquently than can I.

As the previously noted study showing Conservatives understand Liberals but Liberals cannot understand Conservatives showed, Conservative moral positions are broad-based among the various moral groupings, while Liberal moral positions focus in on a very narrow subset. Liberals are far more close-minded in the realm of morals and cannot understand that which they cannot even see.

Liberals live under the twin fallacies of the false equivalency and the false dichotomy. In all the Liberals’ attacks against Conservatives for being “selfish”, “greedy”, “uncaring”, the twin fallacies of the false equivalency and the false dichotomy can be seen in full expression. An example of that twin-fallacy in action:

If you are against the Government feeding the poor, you are against feeding the poor. Likewise, if you are for feeding the poor, you are for the government feeding the poor.

As shown above, Conservatives are far more personally involved in charitable activities than are Liberals, thus proving the lie to the Liberal twin-fallacy talking point. But, as also shown above, Liberals in general are incapable of broadening their scope of understanding to accept anything beyond their own narrow viewpoints. And the greatest danger is that Conservatives and Libertarians will accede to the Liberal fallacies, thus inappropriately accepting Liberal redefinitions (hello, Big Brother) while trying to fight off other Liberal lies. Unfortunately, Hoagie has fallen victim to that Leftist ploy while fighting the Socialist Perry Hood over on The First Street Journal.

Remember, to the Left, those who oppose Government providing “stuff” to the “poor” oppose providing “stuff” to the “poor”, and corollarily, those who favor providing “stuff” to the “poor” favor Government providing “stuff” to the “poor”. It’s the false equivalence and false dichotomy married fallacy in which nearly all Liberals live. And it’s that married fallacy Hoagie accidentally allowed to be true, inappropriately ceding ground to Liberals that the Liberals had no right to claim. Allow me to explain.

First, and simply:
Agreeing that there are those who are suffering and in need of help does not at all mean the Government should step in and help.
Corollarily, declaring the Government has no business helping those who are suffering does not at all mean those who are suffering should be left to suffer.
Related: The US Constitution does not permit Government to step in. Period. (Full-stop, for those 17 percent reading this site who most likely speak the King’s English.)

Those who actually read Crockett’s words will have learned a thing or two about the Constitutional Conservative position. But I highly doubt Liberals and “Progressives” (read Socialists) such as Perry Hood or Molly will even bother with taking the time necessary to learn from history (hint, Molly). They are doomed to repeat the failures of the emotionalist, logic-free Left. Remember, it is a proven fact that Conservatives are more generous with their own time and money than are Liberals. And Conservatives want Government out of the business of wealth-redistribution. And these two positions are not at all in contradiction one with the other.

And here we get to Perry Hood’s lie-filled “Christian in name only” bovine biproduct. Perry Hood is a Socialist who has declared Christian doctrine to be brain-washing and mythology, and has rejected the deity of Christ Jesus. But Perry Hood, like all his Alinskyite mentors, falsely claims Jesus preached Socialism, and Government-forced Socialism at that. Despite all the parables that declared those who don’t have will have what they do have taken from them and be cast into Outer Darkness, and those who do have will be given ever more. And despite all the teachings declaring charitable giving to be a matter of the heart and not a matter of coercion.

While it is also important to give of yourself without seeking approbation from the people around you, and that would include blog readers, I am going to relate a bit of personal history. I am completely anonymous to most readers of this blog. Is my name here a pseudonym? Is it my real name? Most people don’t know, and will never know. So my speaking of myself in this medium does not allow for personal glory. But it does allow for a clear example of what I’m talking about.

I have never made as much as 35k in a single year. Never. And most of my adult life, I’ve been below 25k. So I’ve been, for the most part, one of the “poor” or very low level “middle class”. In 1988, I believe it was, I decided to provide four Thanksgiving Dinners to those less fortunate. And my family of three had an income of below 17k that year. I went out and bought four turkeys, four 5-lb bags of potatoes, four stuffing mixes, eight cans of cranberry sauce, eight cans of green beans, four aluminum turkey roasting pans. And, noting that there was a special on turkeys for Thanksgiving where one could buy a turkey for the outrageously cut-rate price of 25 cents a pound (or so), I made it a point that I paid full price. It was the principle. I wasn’t buying a single turkey and I wasn’t buying them for myself; therefore, I wasn’t entitled to the cut-rate price.

My pastor gave me the addresses of four needy families for me to personally deliver the Thanksgiving Dinner fixings, despite my very strong desire to give them to him so he could deliver them. He wanted it to be directly from me to them, while I wanted the anonymity and absolutely complete non-glorious attribute of nobody knowing nothing. But, c’est la vie. My pastor warned me that one of the families was to absolutely not be given any cash whatsoever and only food. A single mother on Welfare and Section 8 housing, who was completely irresponsible personally and would spend the money on things she should not be spending money on. But there was another family, an actual family who were members of the Church, who my pastor sent me to with my own gift of charity. That family of four was far better off than mine. Far better off. But they had hit a very severe patch of rough times and were very much in need of help. And, seeing the man’s eyes and face and body language when I told him I would be delivering the food the Wednesday before Thanksgiving, and seeing his eyes and face and body language when I delivered the food was a memory I will never forget. He was absolutely ashamed of himself and absolutely ashamed to be accepting free food. But he accepted the free food.

I will never forget the shame that man felt. And I will never forget the nonchalant, almost entitled, expression of the Section 8 Housing single mother as I delivered her free food.

But on to the more extended point.

It is entirely possible for a Conservative to absolutely and completely reject any idea for Government to aid the downtrodden, while absolutely and completely supporting aid to the downtrodden. There is no contradiction, whatsoever. In fact, it is indeed in holding to Constitutional Conservative values and Christian values.

Liberals, who absolutely demand the Government spend billions of dollars to support those the Liberals claim are downtrodden and helpless, do not willingly provide their time and money in amounts comparable to Conservatives. Conservatives, who absolutely demand the Government has no right to spend tax-payer dollars in that manner, willingly provide their time and money in amounts far exceeding that of Liberals. And that’s a documented fact.

But you don’t have to look at dry documentary evidence. Just look around your communities. Catholic hospitals. Methodist hospitals. Presbyterian hospitals. Catholic charities. Inter-Church Social Services. Inter-Church food pantries. Various denominational housing for the homeless. Red Cross. Labor Day Jerry Lewis Telethon for Muscular Dystrophy. Blood drives. Food drives. Habitat for Humanity. ASPCA fund-raisers. UNICEF. United Way. Schools sending their kids to sell candy bars. Big Brother/Big Sister. Salvation Army bell ringers. These are all examples of people taking it upon themselves to help others. And there are many more.

But when Government gets involved and starts to put regulations that violate the principles of the various charities, those charities close down instead of kowtowing to the almighty Government (ObamaCare and its unconstitutional First Amendment violations regarding the Catholic Church and others, for one recent example). And when Government starts to pump in all manner of strings-free (supposedly) money, charities die. Prior to Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson, the US was a rapidly expanding, rapidly wealth-growing nation without the Government providing everything for millions. After Wilson, Roosevelt, Johnson, a great many charities died and Government took over.

And the Government take-over provided all manner of guaranteed votes for the Democrat (read leech) Party. Perry Hood accidentally let loose the public secret that all this money to the “poor” from the Government came with a string: You have to be beholden to the Government that allows you to be a Personally Irresponsible leech. If you don’t kowtow low enough to the Government and the Democrat Party which made the “free lunch” possible, you are absolutely derelict in your duty to be appropriately appreciative of Big Nanny Government. WOWZERS! What a massive noose around your neck the Socialist Left (such as Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama) have placed! And if you even deign to take that noose off your neck? You have to be destroyed by all means possible! Legal or illegal, ethical or unethical.

If Christian Charities give you the support you need in times of trouble, they have expectations, too. They expect you to be Personally Responsible enough to stand up and take care of yourself. They do not demand, nor to they expect, any kowtows. Their glory is in helping you help yourself and in helping you become totally independent of any need. The Leftist/Statist Government? Why, if you don’t scrape your nose when you bow down, you haven’t done it right! Just ask Perry Hood or any of the other radical Leftists (provided they ever are accidentally honest).

No, the massive majority of American history shows success as a result of personal actions and not Government actions. In fact, George Washington had it right.

Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.

Today’s Democrat Party, led by a massive amount of Socialists, worse than merely not being your grandparents’ Democrat Party, are totally in love with Big Government. In fact, the bigger the better for Democrats. And the more people who get “free stuff” from Government, the more likely Democrats are to be re-elected. The most successful, most free, wealthiest nation on Earth and in History, which has provided the greatest opportunity for poor to become wealthy; that nation is dying as a result of Democrats promising “freebies” to voters and then demanding unquestioned allegiance from those voters who got those “freebies”. Just like the queen in CS Lewis’ The Silver Chair. And with the exact same evil enslavement results.

No, I do not approve of Government ever stepping in to “help the poor”. Or whatever group the Leftists think need tax-payer dollars fed into it. I do not approve of Government exceeding its Constitutional limits. But Barack Obama has already declared an aversion to the “negative rights” which the US Constitution uses to prevent the Government from being that fearful taskmaster. That fearful taskmaster that Big Government Statist Republicans and Democrats have created for all of US.

Down on your luck? Don’t turn to Government. Turn to private charities. Government will demand too much from you while keeping you dependent. Private charities will demand that you stand up and become personally responsible. They don’t want your worship.

If someone is down on their luck, do I think they should be able to seek aid?
YES.
Do I think they should seek aid from Government?
NO. ABSOLUTELY NO. NEVER. NO.

I believe we should return to the US Constitution and get Government out of all its unconstitutional “for the poor” programs.

I recognize three points regarding my plan:
1) It would be very painful.
2) It would be very liberating.
3) It will never happen so long as Socialist Democrats and Ruling Class Republicans rule government, the horrible taskmaster.

And what is my plan, exactly? It’s a mere two-point plan. And it would return America to its glory days. Those two points:
1) Eliminate any and every Government program that “helps the poor”.
2) Eliminate 99.95 percent of all regulations on private charities.

That’s it. That’s all. If such were done, the severely atrophied private charities would suddenly grow to retake their rightful places, which Government usurped. If such were done, all Governments would suddenly go from devastatingly deficit spending to having an outrageously large revenue surplus. If such were done, businesses would start booming. If such were done, the “poor” would find it far easier to move up the economic ladder, as was historically the case — which mad the USA the wealthiest, most free, most desirable destination on Earth.

But if such were done, politicians would lose their massive power. (And is that a negative or a positive?)

Like this:

When neither the former husband, who was running for office, nor the former wife, who wasn’t, agreed to break the sealed divorce documents, and there was no court injunction to break that court-decreed seal, what did it take to break that seal? Ask Barack Obama.

There are no laws permitting that sort of Contempt of Court. But Obama and his henchmen did just that in Illinois, home of the most corrupt political machine in the 21st Century. But since then, Obama has found himself in Contempt of Court in fact, in a Federal Court, while he was the sitting President.

Obama is above the Law and above the Constitution. Or at least he thinks he is. And his lemmings follow right behind him in Law violations, Constitution violations, Court Order violations, violations, violations, violations.

And he lies constantly. And he uses straw men, red herrings, poisoned wells, false dichotomies, all manner of fallacies to pull the wool over the ignorant people’s eyes.

But here’s my predicament. Mitt Romney lies, flip-flops seemingly hourly so nobody knows what he really believes (but I guarantee it is arsenic-laced), and has instituted the Father of ObamaCare, while to this day proudly declaring RomneyCare is Conservative. (Did you know RomneyCare depends on huge payouts by the Federal Government? And RomneyCare has caused Massachusetts health care expenses to increase faster tha the US? Yup, you Californians are paying for people in Massachusetts to get abortions.)

If Obama serves 4 more years as President, the US is dead and buried. If Romney serves 8 years as President, the US is dead and buried. If Romney wins the Presidency, the Conservative grass-roots movement is critically wounded. If Romney only serves 4 years after ousting the Socialist Barack Hussein Obama and is replaced by another Democrat, the US is dead and buried.

As far as I’m concerned, the only chance for the us is to vote Obama’s satanic Socialist ass out of there and replace him with Romney’s Socialist-lite ass, and then Primary Romney’s Socialist ass out of there in 2016. But I guarantee I will never vote for that pro-abort, pro-mandated health insurance, pro-“progressive” income tax, anti-Reagan, 3 sides to every issue, absolute squish Romney.

We absolutely need to vote in Constitutional Conservatives in both the House and the Senate (most importantly the Senate this time around (Vote Cruz! Vote Mourdock! Vote against Hatch!) in order to stop the Socialist agenda of which ever Socialist wins. And then we need to find someone to rally the grass roots against the Big Government Socialism of whichever wins. And when she steps up to the plate in 2016, I’ll vote for her in a heart-beat.

Molly shot herself in the face point-blank with a sawed-off 20 gauge shotgun. If it weren’t so devastatingly distressing, it would be hilarious. The public education system, which has nothing to do with education and everything to do with indoctrination, absolutely failed to educate her but absolutely succeeded in indoctrinating her. In one of her articles (likely in all of her articles), she left her irony on, and how! You see, most people’s ironies only go up to 10 but her irony goes all the way up to 11.

Molly, in her haste to sound smart and informed and junk, decided to try to quote some famous person saying something smart and informed and junk. But she badly bastardized it.

Those who don’t know history are destined to repeat it.

Then she did a “header” formatting to make it bold, italicized, and blue. She quadrupled down on her dumb right there, trying to act as smart as the person whose quote she badly bastardized. How’s that irony doin’, Molly? Forgot to turn it off again as you went to buy you some genuine faux fox fur stoleds?

What was she talking about when she left her irony on? Social Security and Medicare. Remember, she’s a self-professed Liberal and “Progressive” (read Socialist). Do you think she knows anything about the history, ancient and recent and current, regarding Social Security and Medicare? Here’s a hint: she’s a self-declared Liberal and “Progressive” (read Socialist). Oh, did that irony’s dial just get turned up? Why, yes it did!

After she wrote her 9 irony article which blasted someone who had bad things to say about Social Security, another brain-dead Leftist went and turned it up to 10. He said that person who said bad things about a Government mandated Ponzi Scheme would likely give it up to invest in Bernie Madoff’s illegal Ponzi Scheme. Note to Leftists and fools (redundant, I know): All Ponzi Schemes are doomed to fail from the moment they start.

Well, being as ignorant as she is (she is, after all, a Liberal and a Socialist), she couldn’t just let that go. She had to prove how ignorant she is. And she pulled the trigger. And shot herself in the face. She whole-heartedly agreed with the absolutely ignorant Leftist, completely ignorant of history and the present, and joined in lambasting someone who stood up against the Government-mandated Ponzi Scheme and mocking the Ponzi Scheme detractor as if he were dumb enough to give money to someone who ran a Ponzi Scheme. She got her irony turned up all the way to 11! And then she left the house with her irony still turned on.

Molly, since you are totally ignorant of history, and judging by what I’ve seen out of you, totally uninterested in learning history, I’ll use your horribly bastardized quotation so I don’t hurt your itty bitty brain. (Maybe some time you’ll become curious enough to actually, you know, learn some history.)

I was one day in the lobby of the House of Representatives when a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support, rather, as I thought, because it afforded the speakers a fine opportunity for display than from the necessity of convincing anybody, for it seemed to me that everybody favored it. The Speaker was just about to put the question, when Crockett arose. Everybody expected, of course, that he was going to make one of his characteristic speeches in support of the bill. He commenced:

“Mr. Speaker — I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I have never heard that the Government was in arrears to him. This Government can owe no debts but for services rendered, and at a stipulated price. If it is a debt, how much is it? Has it been audited, and the amount due ascertained? If it is a debt, this is not the place to present it for payment, or to have its merits examined. If it is a debt, we owe more than we can ever hope to pay, for we owe the widow of every soldier who fought in the war of 1812 precisely the same amount. There is a woman in my neighborhood, the widow of as gallant a man as ever shouldered a musket. He fell in battle. She is as good in every respect as this lady, and is as poor. She is earning her daily bread by her daily labor, and if I were to introduce a bill to appropriate five or ten thousand dollars for her benefit, I should be laughed at, and my bill would not get five votes in this House. There are thousands of widows in the country just such as the one I have spoken of; but we never hear of any of these large debts to them. Sir, this is no debt. The Government did not owe it to the deceased when he was alive; it could not contract it after he died. I do not wish to be rude, but I must be plain. Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week’s pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks.”

He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage, and, instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as, no doubt, it would, but for that speech, it received but few votes, and, of course, was lost.

Like many other young men, and old ones too, for that matter, who had not thought upon the subject, I desired the passage of the bill, and felt outraged at its defeat. I determined that I would persuade my friend Crockett to move a reconsideration the next day.

Previous engagements preventing me from seeing Crockett that night, I went early to his room the next morning, and found him engaged in addressing and franking letters, a large pile of which lay upon his table.

I broke in upon him rather abruptly, by asking him what devil had possessed him to make that speech and defeat that bill yesterday. Without turning his head or looking up from his work, he replied :

“You see that I am very busy now; take a seat and cool yourself. I will be through in a few minutes, and then I will tell you all about it.”

He continued his employment for about ten minutes, and when he had finished it turned to me and said:

“Now, sir, I will answer your question. But thereby hangs a tale, and one of considerable length, to which you will have to listen.”

I listened, and this is the tale which I heard:

“Several years ago I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some other members of Congress, when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast as we could. When we got there I went to work, and I never worked as hard in my life as I did there for several hours. But, in spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made houseless, and, besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many women and children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done for them, and everybody else seemed to feel the same way.”

“The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business, and rushed it through as soon as it could be done. I said everybody felt as I did. That was not quite so; for, though they perhaps sympathized as deeply with the sufferers as I did, there were a few of the members who did not think we had the right to indulge our sympathy or excite our charity at the expense of anybody but ourselves. They opposed the bill, and upon its passage demanded the yeas and nays. There were not enough of them to sustain the call, but many of us wanted our names to appear in favor of what we considered a Praiseworthy measure, and we voted with them to sustain it. So the yeas and nays were recorded, and my name appeared on the journals in favor of the bill.”

“The next summer, when it began to be time to think about the election, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there, but, as the election was some time off, I did not know what might turn up, and I thought it was best to let the boys know that I had not forgot them, and that going to Congress had not made me too proud to go to see them.”

“So I put a couple of shirts and a few twists of tobacco into my saddle-bags, and put out. I had been out about a week, and had found things going very smoothly, when, riding one day in a part of my district in which I was more of a stranger than any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road. I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came to the fence. As he came up I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but, as I thought, rather coldly, and was about turning his horse for another furrow, when I asked him if he could give me a chew of tobacco.”

“Yes,” said he, “such as we make and use in this part of the country; but it may not suit your taste, as you are probably in the habit of using better.”

“With that he pulled out of his pocket part of a twist in its natural state, and handed it to me. I took a chew, and handed it back to him. He turned to his plow, and was about to start off. I said to him: “Don’t be in such a hurry, my friend; I want to have a little talk with you, and get better acquainted,” He replied:

“I am very busy, and have but little time to talk, but if it does not take too long, I will listen to what you have to say.”

“I began: “Well, friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates, and—”

“Yes, I know you; you are Colonel Crockett. I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine. I shall not vote for you again.”

“This was a sockdologer. I had been making up my mind that he was one of those churlish fellows who care for nobody but themselves, and take bluntness for independence. I had seen enough of them to know there is a way to reach them, and was satisfied that if I could get him to talk to me I would soon have him straight. But this was entirely a different bundle of sticks. He knew me, had voted for me before, and did not intend to do it again. Something must be the matter; I could not imagine what it was. I had heard of no complaints against me, except that some of the dandies about the village ridiculed some of the wild and foolish things that I too often say and do, and said that I was not enough of a gentleman to go to Congress. I begged him to tell me what was the matter.

“Well, Colonel, it is hardly worth while to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it in that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the constituent to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting or wounding you. I intend by it only to say that your understanding of the Constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what, but for my rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest.”

“Thank you for that, but you find fault with only one vote. You know the story of Henry Clay, the old huntsman and the rifle; you wouldn’t break your gun for one snap.”

“No, nor for a dozen. As the story goes, that tack served Mr. Clay’s purpose admirably, though it really had nothing to do with the case. I would not break the gun, nor would I discard an honest representative for a mistake in judgment as a mere matter of policy. But an understanding of the Constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the more honest he is.”

“I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake about it, for I do not remember that I gave any vote last winter upon any constitutional question.”

“No, Colonel, there’s no mistake. Though I live here in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings of Congress. My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by a fire in Georgetown. Is that true!”

“Certainly it is, and I thought that was the last vote for which anybody in the world would have found fault with.”

“Well, Colonel, where do you find in the Constitution any authority to give away the public money in charity!”

“Here was another sockdologer; for, when I began to think about it, I could not remember a thing in the Constitution that authorized it. I found I must take another tack, so I said:

“Well, my friend; I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing Treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just as I did.”

“It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the Government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing to do with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be entrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means. What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the Government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right: to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive, what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been burned in this county as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week’s pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of wealthy men in and around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life. The Congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditably; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from the necessity of giving by giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution.”

“I have given you,” continued Crockett, “an imperfect account of what he said. Long before he was through, I was convinced that I had done wrong. He wound up by saying:

“So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you.”

“I tell you I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and this man should go to talking, he would set others to talking, and in that district I was a gone fawn-skin. I could not answer him, and the fact is I was so fully convinced that he was right, I did not want to. But I must satisfy him, and I said to him:

“Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not sense enough to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it, and thought I had studied it fully. I have heard many speeches in Congress about the powers of Congress, but what you have said here at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it, than all the fine speeches I ever heard. If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote, and if you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law I wish I may be shot.”

“He laughingly replied: “Yes, Colonel, you have sworn to that once before, but I will trust you again upon one condition. You say that you are convinced that your vote was wrong. Your acknowledgment of it will do more good than beating you for it. If, as you go round the district, you will tell the people about this vote, and that you are satisfied it was wrong, J will not only vote for you, but will do what I can to keep down opposition, and, perhaps, I may exert some little influence in that way.”

“If I don’t,” said I, “I wish I may be shot; and to convince you that I am in earnest in what I say I will come back this way in a week or ten days, and if you will get up a gathering of the people, I will make a speech to them. Get up a barbecue, and I will pay for it.”

“No, Colonel, we are not rich people in this section, but we have plenty of provisions to contribute for a barbecue, and some to spare for those who have none. The push of crops will be over in a few days, and we can then afford a day for a barbecue. This is Thursday; I will see to getting it up on Saturday week. Come to my house on Friday, and we will go together, and I promise you a very respectable crowd to see and hear you.”

“Well, I will be here. But one thing more before I say good-by. I must know your name.”

“My name is Bunce.”

“Not Horatio Bunce?”

“Yes.”

“Well, Mr. Bunce, I never saw you before, though you say you have seen me, but I know you very well. I am glad that I have met you, and very proud that I may hope to have you for my friend. You must let me shake your hand before I go.”

“We shook hands and parted. “It was one of the luckiest hits of my life that I met him. He mingled but little with the public, but was widely known for his remarkable intelligence and incorruptible integrity, and for a heart brimful and running over with kindness and benevolence, which showed themselves not only in words but in acts. He was the oracle of the whole country around him, and his fame had extended far beyond the circle of his immediate acquaintance. Though I had never met him before, I had heard much of him, and but for this meeting it is very likely I should have had opposition, and been beaten. One thing is very certain, no man could now stand up in that district under such a vote.

“At the appointed time I was at his house, having told our conversation to every crowd I had met, and to every man I stayed all night with, and I found that it gave the people an interest and a confidence in me stronger than I had ever seen manifested before.

“Though I was considerably fatigued when I reached his house, and, under ordinary circumstances, should have gone early to bed, I kept him up until midnight, talking about the principles and affairs of government, and got more real, true knowledge of them than I had got all my life before.

“It is not exactly pertinent to my story, but I must tell you more about him. When I saw him with his family around him, I was not surprised that he loved to stay at home. I have never in any other family seen a manifestation of so much confidence, familiarity and freedom of manner of children toward their parents mingled with such unbounded love and respect.

“He was not at the house when I arrived, but his wife received and welcomed me with all the ease and cordiality of an old friend. She told me that her husband was engaged in some out-door business, but would be in shortly. She is a woman of fine person; her face is not what the world would at first sight esteem beautiful. In a state of rest there was too much strength and character in it for that, but when she engaged in conversation, and especially when she smiled, it softened into an expression of mingled kindness, goodness, and strength that was beautiful beyond anything I have ever seen.

“Pretty soon her husband came in, and she left us and went about her household affairs. Toward night the children–he had about seven of them– began to drop in; some from work, some from school, and the little ones from play. They were introduced to me, and met me with the same ease and grace that marked the manner of their mother. Supper came on, and then was exhibited the loveliness of the family circle in all its glow. The father turned the conversation to the matters in which the children had been interested during the day, and all, from the oldest to the youngest, took part in it. They spoke to their parents with as much familiarity and confidence as if they had been friends of their own age, yet every word and every look manifested as much respect as the humblest courtier could manifest for a king; aye, more, for it was all sincere, and strengthened by love. Verily it was the Happy Family.

“I have told you Mr. Bunce converted me politically. He came nearer converting me religiously than I had ever been before. When supper was over, one of the children brought him a Bible and hymn-book. He turned to me and said:

“Colonel, I have for many years been in the habit of family worship night and morning. I adopt this time for it that all may be present. If I postpone it some of us get engaged in one thing and some in another, and the little ones drop off to sleep, so that it is often difficult to get all together.”

“He then opened the Bible, and read the Twenty-third Psalm, commencing: “The Lord is my Shepherd; I shall not want.” It is a beautiful composition, and his manner of reading it gave it new beauties. We then sang a hymn, and we all knelt down. He commenced his prayer “Our Father who art in Heaven.” No one who has not heard him pronounce those words can conceive how they thrilled through me, for I do not believe that they were ever pronounced by human lips as by him. I had heard them a thousand times from the lips of preachers of every grade and denomination, and by all sorts of professing Christians, until they had become words of course with me, but his enunciation of them gave them an import and a power of which I had never conceived. There was a grandeur of reverence, a depth of humility, a fullness of confidence and an overflowing of love which told that his spirit was communing face to face with its God. An overwhelming feeling of awe came over me, for I felt that I was in the invisible presence of Jehovah. The whole prayer was grand–grand in its simplicity, in the purity of the spirit it breathed, in its faith, its truth, and its love. I have told you he came nearer converting me religiously than I had ever been before. He did not make a very good Christian of me, as you know; but he has wrought upon my mind a conviction of the truth of Christianity, and upon my feelings a reverence for its purifying and elevating power such as I had never felt before.

“I have known and seen much of him since, for I respect him–no, that is not the word–I reverence and love him more than any living man, and I go to see him two or three times every year; and I will tell you, sir, if every one who professes to be a Christian lived and acted and enjoyed it as he does, the religion of Christ would take the world by storm.

“But to return to my story. The next morning we went to the barbecue, and, to my surprise, found about a thousand men there. I met a good many whom I had not known before, and they and my friend introduced me around until I had got pretty well acquainted–at least, they all knew me.

“In due time notice was given that I would speak to them. They gathered up around a stand that had been erected. I opened my speech by saying:

“Fellow-citizens–I present myself before you today feeling like a new man. My eyes have lately been opened to truths which ignorance or prejudice, or both, had heretofore hidden from my view. I feel that I can to-day offer you the ability to render you more valuable service than I have ever been able to render before. I am here today more for the purpose of acknowledging my error than to seek your votes. That I should make this acknowledgment is due to myself as well as to you. Whether you will vote for me is a matter for your consideration only.”

“I went on to tell them about the fire and my vote for the appropriation as I have told it to you, and then told them why I was satisfied it was wrong. I closed by saying:

“And now, fellow-citizens, it remains only for me to tell you that the most of the speech you have listened to with so much interest was simply a repetition of the arguments by which your neighbor, Mr. Bunce, convinced me of my error.”

“It is the best speech I ever made in my life, but he is entitled to the credit of it. And now I hope he is satisfied with his convert and that he will get up here and tell you so.”

“He came upon the stand and said:

“Fellow-citizens–It affords me great pleasure to comply with the request of Colonel Crockett. I have always considered him a thoroughly honest man, and I am satisfied that he will faithfully perform all that he has promised you today.”

“He went down, and there went up from that crowd such a shout for Davy Crockett as his name never called forth before.

“I am not much given to tears, but I was taken with a choking then and felt some big drops rolling down my cheeks. And I tell you now that the remembrance of those few words spoken by such a man, and the honest, hearty shout they produced, is worth more to me than all the honors I have received and all the reputation I have ever made, or ever shall make, as a member of Congress.

“Now, sir,” concluded Crockett, “you know why I made that speech yesterday. I have had several thousand copies of it printed, and was directing them to my constituents when you came in.

“There is one thing now to which I will call your attention. You remember that I proposed to give a week’s pay. There are in that House many very wealthy men–men who think nothing of spending a week’s pay, or a dozen of them, for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of those same men made beautiful speeches upon the great debt of gratitude which the country owed the deceased–a debt which could not be paid by money–and the insignificance and worthlessness of money, particularly so insignificant a sum as $10,000, when weighed against the honor of the nation. Yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it.”

The hour for the meeting of the House had by this time arrived. We walked up to the Capitol together, but I said not a word to him about moving a reconsideration. I would as soon have asked a sincere Christian to abjure his religion.

I had listened to his story with an interest which was greatly increased by his manner of telling it, for, no matter what we may say of the merits of a story, a speech, or a sermon, it is a very rare production which does not derive its interest more from the manner than the matter, as some of my readers have doubtless, like the writer, proved to their cost.

As I said, most Leftists’ ironies only go to 10 but Molly is proud of her 11 irony. But Perry Hood has her beat. Perry Hood’s irony, which he leaves on all the time, goes all the way up to 12! You see, he declared that the mark of a successful blog is in the total number of comments, and not in the readership. Yet, Perry Hood used an anonymous blogger with next to no commenters as a reliable source. But Perry Hood has been shooting himself in the face with his unbeatable level of irony and absolute dishonesty since at least the onset of 2009.

Sharyl Atkisson, left, and Katy Conrad, right, are two CBS reporters who have dared to seek out the truth, despite their bosses’ desire to push the Liberal agenda.

Everyone who is even remotely aware of the Truth knows that MSNBC is chock full of lies, servicing the radical Leftist agenda. Well, MSNBC lied about the Leftists’ current favorite bogeyman, the Koch Brothers and Koch Industries. Because the radical Left needs a bogeyman, even when they (always) have to lie about said bogeyman. CBS reporter Katy Conrad did her due diligence: she contacted Koch Industries. That makes her an anomaly in the radical Leftist mainstream media. And that makes her a pariah with the Obama administration and the Democrat power-brokers. Just like her CBS colleague, another woman, who is busily unearthing the criminal corruption that has cost hundreds of human lives that is known as Fast and Furious, and is being yelled at and censured as a result of her desire to unearth and report the facts.

In related news, the tax-payer funded and wholly Leftist media organization NPR completely neglected to report that someone feeding it information was very closely tied to a radically Leftist organization. But that’s a “dog bites man” story, since it is SOP for NPR to hide those exculpatory facts.

You want the truth? If you’re a radical Leftist, you can’t handle the truth!

UPDATE
Robert Stacy McCain (The Other McCain) #tcot retweeted this article and linked to this article from his front page. Thank you, RS McCain, for the retweet and link.

I’m on Arutz-7’s mailing list. I get Israel News Network mailings and mailings from some of their advertisers. And intentionally so. I got an email from people who want to teach me Hebrew online (and I would love to learn the Holy language of Hebrew but have neither the time nor the financial ability currently) announcing the celebration of 64 years after Israel’s “birth” which is, actually, Israel’s rebirth since Israel herself is thousands of years old. In that email was an offer of free Israel photos if I fill out a form. I did so. Beautiful photos.

"A land flowing with milk and honey."

Turning the desert wasteland into life-sustaining land.

Thriving Tel Aviv on the shores of the Mediterranean Sea

Israel's Capitol yesterday, today, and tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow.

Turning barren wasteland into a land teeming with life.

64 years ago, Jewish people who had suffered one of the most aggressive attempts to annihilate Jewry in the history of the world came flowing into their ancient homeland against all odds and against the wishes of the international community. From that point until today, and continuing onward into the future, Israel has had to defend herself from the massively superior — both numerically and in firepower — enemies in the region and across the world who want nothing short of the total annihilation of Israel and Jewry. And Israel has been extraordinarily successful, beyond that which is even remotely humanly possible. Because Adonai is with them. Because Yahweh will not allow His Chosen People to be extinguished. Period. (Full stop, for those using The King’s English.) Not only has Israel succeeded beyond human capacity in defending herself from all her foes wishing her total destruction, she has also turned a barren, life-killing desert wasteland into “a land flowing with milk and honey.”

Barren land that Israel gains becomes agriculturally rich and self-sustaining land in very short time. And the reverse is also true. Land that Israel has turned into agriculturally rich and self-sustaining land; land that Israel has turned into money-making tourist destination; land that Israel has turned into economically booming land; that land, when turned over to Israel’s enemies in the hopes of shalom become barren once again. But it becomes worse than when Israel possessed it as it is not only barren, but filled with the ruins of a previously highly successful society, all the while housing large numbers of people who are absolutely incapable of sustaining themselves, but are only intent on eliminating Israel and Jewry from the face of the world map.

When Israel gained control of the Gaza Strip in a self-defense war to keep herself from being wiped off the map, the Gaza Strip was a barren desert that could not, at all, sustain life. Israel made it “a land flowing with milk and honey.” When Israel turned it over to the Palestinian terrorists in the hopes of shalom, the Palestinian terrorists who had no desire at all for shalom not only destroyed the land’s ability to sustain the people but also turned it into a terrorist haven from which to further its hate-filled goals to kill all Jews and to destroy Israel.

Israel pumps hundreds of millions of gallons of the life-blood of all peoples — fresh water — into lands that don’t have that life-blood, lands that want nothing less than for Israel to cease to exist and for all Jews to be eradicated, in the hopes for shalom. Israel is prosperous because of her people’s blood and sweat. Israel is an agricultural behemoth because of her people’s blood and sweat. Israel is a massive exporter of fresh water because of her people’s blood and sweat. Israel is in existence today despite the gargantuan odds against her because of her people’s blood and sweat. And all of this also because Providence will not let those who curse Israel — His Chosen People — succeed.

Israel, a land roughly the size of New Jersey, has succeeded against all human and Satanic odds against her, yet she only wants shalom. She has given up massive chunks of land for shalom. She has given up the Golan Heights for shalom. (The Golan Heights are Israel’s Sudetenland (see: Hitler and Czechoslovakia).) But all the nations surrounding Israel, all the Communist nations, all the Liberals in the US, especially Barack Obama and the absolute nutball Ron Paul, are arrayed against Israel. They have absolutely no desire for shalom in Israel. They want Israel dead.

“I will bless those that bless you and curse those that curse you.” — The Almighty, speaking to Israel.
______________________For more Israel pictures like the ones above, register here.

Rock and Roll bands have occasionally acquired added musical support for their “one drum and three guitars” music. Sometimes, the rock bands consist of one drum, two guitars and a keyboard. But they all invariably employ outside help for certain songs and certain sounds. Kool & the Gang employed a very large (for a rock band) brass section, but that brass section was not extra help. It was integral to Kool & the Gang’s sound. Without the alto sax, tenor sax, trumpet, trombone, Kool & the Gang would not have their signature sound. That, and the peppy, up-beat sound made Kool & the Gang extraordinarily successful. And it gave them reason to celebrate.

And I have no doubt that song was played in November, 2010, as the TEA Party crushed the Marxist, Maoist Democrat agenda in epic fashion. More House seats switched sides in 2010 than had switched sides since the Great Depression, clearly outdistancing the 1994 Republican Tsunami, itself a strong reaction against radical Leftism in its own right. But that’s not where 2010 ended. Many Democrat-held Governorships were swept under by the breaking TEA Party wave, such as Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, and most notably Wisconsin, the birthplace of “Progressivism” (read Socialism).

Again, that’s not where the TEAnami ended. A lot of people in the Socialist Democrat camp and in the Ruling Class Republican camp point to Nevada, Delaware, and Alaska in their mockery of the TEA Party, but they do so because they don’t want people to see Wisconsin’s ouster of a long-term radical Leftist Senator or Utah’s ouster of a mush-mouth Republican or the addition of a Republican in the Illinois US Senate seat previously besmirched by Barack Obama’s, umm, personality. They don’t want any attention focused on the fact over 200 Democrat-held seats in the New Hampshire Legislature switched hands into Republican seats. They don’t want anyone to notice that, for the first time since Reconstruction (or the first time in 170 years, which is longer), Democrats are no longer the majority Party in some southern Legislatures. They don’t want anyone to note that over 700 Democrat-held seats became Republican-held seats and primarily because of Obama-Reid-Pelosi and the TEA Party.

Enter 2012. The Ruling Class Republicans have forced the mush-mouth, three sides to every issue, dishonest Mitt Romney on us. They think they’ve won. But they have two very serious battles on their hands. Orrin Hatch did not survive the Utah Caucus and must face a Conservative challenger in a Primary run-off. The absolute squish Dick Lugar of Indiana (who hasn’t lived in Indiana in over 30 years) has been called out on his lie-filled attacks against his challenger Mourdock by none other than a very well-known and very oft-cited Leftist fact-checker. From the esteemed Cornell Law School professor William Jacobson at Legal Insurrection:

Lugar now is in the political fight of his life against Richard Mourdock. Lugar is fighting back, as I pointed out previously, with blatantly false accusations calling Mourdock a tax cheat, and absurd race-card plays.

Now even FactCheck.org is calling Lugar out on the numerous lies being spread by Lugar’s campaign and SuperPAC[.]

Barney Frank (D – MA, retiring) has publically declared Democrats should not have pushed forward with ObamaCare. While he’s absolutely right about that, he gets all the reasons wrong. But he’s not the only Democrat — outgoing or not — that has declared all or part of ObamaCare to have been the wrong decision to make. A perusal of the above links will show outgoing and one-term Senator Jim Webb (D – VA) agrees, as do multiple Leftists in the media. Again, they arrive at the truth by way of absolutely failed logic, but they do admit the truth: ObamaCare was a wrong thing to pass. And it might not survive, any part of it, the Supreme Court challenge. So the first 2 years in total power down the drain. And a major reason for the 2010 TEAnami.

Will 2012 produce the same TEAnami effects as 2010? Absolutely not. And Ruling Class Republicans and the mainstream media (read Democrats) will proclaim the lack of such a TEAnami to be proof the TEA Party has lost its influence. It will be a lie. If, in the elections this year, the current status is maintained, it will provide a new “normal” in the political world. The TEA Party influence in the US political world will have been quantified and standardized. Meaning the TEA Party is maintaining its influence, however less publicly and less vocally.

But I don’t expect status quo. I expect even more Governors’ mansions will be Republican-occupied as a result of the 2012 elections than now. I expect more State Legislatures will change hands from Democrat to Republican. I expect the US Senate to go decidedly Republican.

When then-Governor Joe Manchin (D – WV), a well-liked politician as evidenced by his sky-high approval ratings ran for special election for Robert Byrd’s seat– What? Oh, that’s right. Sorry about that. Ladies and gentlemen, Senator Brown (R – MA) reminds me it’s The People’s Seat and not Robert Byrd’s seat. When then-Governor Manchin ran for special election to the US Senate after the previous Senator went on to his Eternal Reward (or punishment), he found himself in an unexpectedly tight race as a Republican businessman with far lower name recognition took him to the mat by tying him to ObamaCare. And Senator Joe Manchin (D – WV) has publicly declared he doesn’t know if he’ll vote for Obama this year or no. ABC writer Matthew Larotonda quotes Obama bigshot David Axelrod’s statements on CNN declaring Joe Manchin made a self-survival political decision by publicly being unsure of his vote for President.

One of the Obama campaign’s top men says Sen. Joe Manchin’s recent statements of indecision over whether to support the president in November was for his own political gain.

On CNN today, David Axelrod suggested the West Virginia Democrat made the statements as a security measure while he seeks reelection this fall.
…
“I think he was very candid there,” Axelrod said. “His concern is about his own political well-being.”

Any Democrat politician who has less than a 5 percent lead will be running away from Obama, for “his own political well-being”. Any Democrat politician who trails the Republican will be running away from Obama, for “his own political well-being.” That’s a given. Obama is absolutely caustic to the re-election hopes of incumbent Democrats and the election hopes of Democrats hoping to unseat Republicans. Toxic.

It is said winners of the Presidential Election have coat-tails. Candidates down-ticket win elections they wouldn’t have due to the person on the top of the ticket. The reverse is also true. And the reverse is a whirlpool. Obama is at the center of history’s arguably most powerful whirlpool in the Free World. Successfully tie a down-ticket Democrat to Obama and that down-ticket Democrat loses his or her election bid. And the TEA Party is busily tying a great many Democrat politicians to the Obama whirlpool. To the dismay of those Democrat politicians. And to the benefit of the country as a whole.

Maintaining the status quo in the various State Governments will validate the TEA Party gains of 2010. Maintaining the status quo, or very nearly so, in the US House of Representatives will validate the TEA Party gains of 2010. But I don’t expect the status quo to be merely maintained. I expect further Conservative and Republican (not at all the same thing) gains in the various State Governments, further gains in the US House. I also expect the Republicans to very clearly become the Majority Party in the US Senate. But not only that. I expect the Republican Majority in the US Senate to be clearly more Conservative than the current Republican Minority. Because of the pull of the TEA Party movement and the aversion to the Socialism brought on by Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Frank, et al.

UPDATE
Professor Jacobson of Legal Insurrection has linked to this article as the finale to his Pennsylvania Primary article. Now you have to watch the bilingual Kool & the Gang music video!

In this age of enhanced political activity among the populace; in this internet age, commercials no longer have to be “TV length”. They can be several minutes long and they’ll be watched. Intentionally watched. By people who have always been plugged in politically and by people who have, out of absolute necessity, have recently plugged in politically. The Gate Keepers may still be keeping the gates locked to the rest of the available information, but those gates no longer have the surrounding walls. Like the Berlin Wall, the information walls have come crashing down. And information-starved people have swept past the still-locked gates the Gate Keepers are still guarding by flowing where the walls used to be instead of where the still-locked gates are. To the dismay of the Liberal Elite.

Here is an example of a not-made-for-TV, several minutes long political ad that people are watching intentionally. An example of how the Gate Keepers are no longer able to restrain the flow of information.

“If I wanted America to fail, I … I suppose I wouldn’t change a thing.” Ain’t that the truth.

All who continue to work in the advancement of these void Executive Orders after the date of this signature (Inauguration Day) shall be terminated forthwith, their retirement and pension plans are forfeit.

Joel Kotkin: The Great California Exodus

A leading U.S. demographer and ‘Truman Democrat’ talks about what is driving the middle class out of the Golden State.
By ALLYSIA FINLEY

“California is God’s best moment,” says Joel Kotkin. “It’s the best place in the world to live.” Or at least it used to be.
…
Now, however, the Golden State’s fastest-growing entity is government and its biggest product is red tape. The first thing that comes to many American minds when you mention California isn’t Hollywood or tanned girls on a beach, but Greece. Many progressives in California take that as a compliment since Greeks are ostensibly happier. But as Mr. Kotkin notes, Californians are increasingly pursuing happiness elsewhere.

Nearly four million more people have left the Golden State in the last two decades than have come from other states. This is a sharp reversal from the 1980s, when 100,000 more Americans were settling in California each year than were leaving. According to Mr. Kotkin, most of those leaving are between the ages of 5 and 14 or 34 to 45. In other words, young families.

As “they” say, RTWT. But some quick math. 100,000 more Americans moving into California than leaving during the 1980s makes 1,000,000 American “profit”. The “loss” of 4,000,000 since the 1980s leaves the accounting books for the past 30 years at a 3,000,000 American soul “loss”.

California has less than 60 million souls. And far less than that number of actual “legally here” souls. And even fewer American souls. For over 4 million souls to vamoose, it would take 6-2/3 percent reduction in American Citizen population over 20 years. Since California has seen a nominal increase in population since Y2K, that means far more than 6-2/3 percent of the total already living in California was added to California by the foreigner influx. Commenter Hoagie’s wife (God bless her soul) just this week became a US Citizen. And she is arguably more Conservative than I, as she grew up within 60 miles of the DMZ. But she differs from California’s immigrants in that she came here legally and she loves the US, while the lion’s share of California’s immigrants are in the US illegally and have no fealty whatsoever with the US. And, contrary to Hoagie’s wife June, it is illegal for them to vote. But they provide a massive amount of support for allocating California’s 53 Representatives to Congress.

Alright, I went on a tangent there for a moment. I’m back. California is sinking into the abyss. Rapidly. California is shedding employers at an alarming rate. And the people California needs to turn California around? They’re fleeing California, too.

What does all of this mean? It means that, in California’s time of greatest need, those who are most able to rescue California have either already left or are in the process of leaving. There was a very popular game back in the 1980s where you spun a marble in a funnel and tried to time its drop before releasing your own marble. The closer you got to the drop point, the more points you scored. As anyone who ever played that game knows, the closer that marble got to the end-point, the faster it spun. Also, there was no telling when that marble would actually give up the ghost and enter its final fall.

This is California. It will fall. It will collapse. It is only a matter of timing. And the responsibility for its fall rests four-square on the shoulders of the residents who continue to elect radical Socialist Democcrats as the people’s lives become evermore unsustainable.

California is collapsing. Those who could save California are fleeing the collapse. That means California will collapse that much sooner. That means even more people who could possibly save California will flee to other states. That means California will collapse that much sooner. That means even more people who could possibly save California will flee to other states. That means California will collapse that much sooner. That means even more people who could possibly save California will flee to other states. … … … …

Anyone else see a pattern?

UPDATE
The Wall Street Journal article, written by a woman, made its way into Hot Air Headlines and got far more comments than normal.

If a very Boston crowd, a very New England crowd, a very Liberal crowd actively boos Barack Insane Obama, what do you think “fly-over country” feels about this radical Socialist race-baiting Tenth Commandment-violating gun-grabbing Catholic-hating Israel-hating Constitution-torching narcissistic false god?

The oceans began to recede.
He brought us out of darkness and into the light. (Micah, Matthew, and, according to Michelle, her husband Barack)

Radical Leftist Socialist Democrats, such as Barack Obama and Perry Hood (Perry for those who met his lying ass years ago on Delaware Liberal or for those who met his lying ass years ago on Colossus of Rhodey (found in my side bar) or for those who met his lying ass on Common Sense Political Thought (found in my side bar), or Wagonwheel (and a sock puppet) for those who found his lying ass on The First Street Journal (found in my sidebar)), are very busily giving Barack Obama all the credit in the world for “saving the US from a second Great Depression and turning the US around.” But is it so? The turn-around, such as it is, did not begin until 2011. There may have been a deceleration in the decline in 2010, but any economist worth his salt will tell you, the closer you get to zero economic activity the harder it will be for the rate toward zero economic activity to continue. It’s only logical. No matter how difficult the times, there will still remain recession-proof jobs. People still need to eat. And after eating, they still need toilet paper. And they will still need garbage collection. So, why is it Obama and the rest of the Socialist Democrats feel worthy to claim any sort of “recovery” (such as it is, and it’s no recovery at all) which took place in 2011? It is because, for some of them, they know there are a huge number of absolutely politically ignorant people in the US who vote out of their absolute ignorance. For the rest of them, it’s due to their arrogantly ignorant and willfully ignorant hatred of anything that has a Conservative tag or an affiliation with the Founders and Framers.

Let’s look at some facts.

Wisconsin elects Governor Walker. Governor Walker keeps his campaign promises. Democrats shirk their responsibilities and flee to Illinois. The Republican agenda is passed anyway. Wisconsin citizens save money on their property taxes for the first time in years, many public schools went from deficit spending to being in the black, Wisconsin went from Democrat Deficit to Republican Balanced, Wisconsin became most improved economic outlook of all 50 states.

John Kasich, the man who became the Budget Committee Chairman after the Republican wave election of 1994 and handed Bill Clinton his “balanced” Budgets that Democrats praise, becomes Governor of Ohio. And proceeds to keep his campaign promises. Ohio’s budget goes from deficit to balanced without a tax increase. Ohio’s economy turns around much more strongly than the US economy.

A more fiscally Conservative Republican takes over for a fiscally irresponsible Democrat as Governor of Pennsylvania.

Southern states see their Legislatures become majority Republican and lose their majority Democrat status for the first time since Reformation (that would be the 1860s for the historically illiterate (read Democrats) among us). Note: that would necessarily mean majority Republican for the first time, since the Republicans supplanted the Whigs most fervently with the Abraham Lincoln election, which the southern states didn’t want.

Republican-led Texas has lowered its unemployment rate down to 7 percent — more than one full percent lower than the US average — despite Obama’s Contempt of Court actions to destroy domestic oil production and despite the Obama administration’s EPA war on Texas electric output.

Over 700 Democrat seats became Republican seats. Actually, a swing of over 700 seats net from Democrat to Republican, counting the very few seats that went from Republican to Democrat.

And after all that (and more that I didn’t list), the national economy quit sinking like a rock and showed signs of growth. And, of course, Democrats are claiming credit for all the work Republicans did. Just like during the Clinton administration, when Republicans tortured to death the Bill Clinton Big Government agenda and replaced it with a smaller (but not small), far less intrusive (but still intrusive), far more fiscally responsible (but still fiscally irresponsible) government agenda.

On the flip side, Democrat-run Illinois pumped multiple massive tax increases — the last happening 3 hours before they lost the vote power to cause it to happen, as the new Legislators would take their seats 3 hours after the vote — and Illinois went from a continuous slow uptick in total jobs in the state to a sudden retraction. After the last, and most major, tax increase from Illinois Democrats, businesses began to flee the state and jobs began to disappear. A net loss in total jobs occurred immediately after that huge tax increase on producers — people and businesses. And that net loss kept accruing for months on end. In fact, I have not seen any report that that sudden turnaround to despair has stopped or even slowed.

California has been losing huge numbers of businesses as they flee that Leftist state. In the wave TEA Party elections, California bucked the trend and pumped Democrats into office. And California’s unemployment rate is further above the national average than Texas’ is below. Businesses are fleeing California, other businesses are refusing to even bother trying to build in California, people are fleeing California.

If you look at economic activity and what rebound it has had, and you plot it according to the time it occurred and the location it occurred, you will find that growth in activity most clearly shown in states that were Republican and stayed Republican, or in states that were Democrat and became Republican. States like California and Illinois, which were Democrat and remained Democrat (doubled down on dumb-o-crap agendae), have suffered greatly. Perhaps even moreso after the 2010 TEAnami than before. Definitely the differences are stark: Conservative and Republican area has amplified its economic superiority over Socialist Democrat area. Just a quick perusal of the facts as I have noted above proves my case. A far more in-depth examination would only serve to prove my case even further. No detached logical fact-based reasoning could result in anything even remotely related to oppositional toward my declaration.

Go ahead. Look at the numbers. Look at the improvement. And look at it state by state and district by district. Or, if you’re a radical leftist like the Democrat power-brokers, don’t. Because radical Leftists will not like what they find (if they even bother to search for Truth, as they are not known for their Honor).

For those legitimately wanting documentation, there are multiple articles covering Wisconsin, Illinois, Meatchicken (I’m a Buckeye through and through, so it’s excruciatingly painful to type out the name of that state), California on Truth Before Dishonor. And they have all manner of links. Of course, you could be Perry Hood, who demands documentation as a mere ploy to shut down discussion of facts he deplores and then never admits the facts absolutely support what his mortal enemy (not some foreign country but, rather, Conservatives in the US) say, in which case, don’t even bother.

You betcha! Congress passed a law that Obama signed that turns peaceful protesters into felons! And it wasn’t just the Democrats. The Republicans joined in passing the law.

Remember the TEA Party crowd in DC when Pelosi and the Congressional Black Caucus waded through, their camera-phones rolling in the hopes of catching raaaaacist epithets and failing to do so? If Obama were to assign Secret Service agents to their protection (so long as those agents aren’t too busy buying whores in Colombia or ogling Sarah Palin), all those protesters could go to prison for more than a year, convicted of a felony, and lose their rights to vote.

Like this:

You’re not alone. For several years, California businesses have pulled up stakes and moved to Texas. Here are a couple quick videos featuring Andrew Puzder, CEO of CKE restaurants (that’s Carls Jr, and Hardees), a multi-billion-dollar business that moved from California to Texas, very briefly touching on some of the reason why.

As I said, the business exodus from California has been ongoing for several years. Here is a video from mid-October, 2010, noting that over 150 businesses had fled California up to that point in 2010 alone, and that it was a continuing occurrence and not the start of the flight.

The businessman’s Texas building has double the square footage at a quarter of the cost.
His corporate truck registration fee is 1/7 the cost it was in California.
His electric bill while running the air conditioning for a full month in Texas is less than 1/3 the average bill in California.
California charges sales tax on leased equipment, unlike most states. Every month of the lease, there’s another month of sales tax.
When California residents put a cap on property tax increases, California Government officials just switched to skyrocketing fees, such as Orange County’s sewer connection fee, which went from 50 a year to 800 a year, a 16-fold increase.
In the same time-period, his fee for a business license nearly doubled.

In other words, California made it far too expensive to remain. Do read the above-linked article.

The Orange County Register reported 69 businesses had moved all or part of their businesses out of California between January 1, 2011, and April 15, 2011, a rate exceeding it’s 2010 pace, according to a firm that had been tracking the exodus since 2009. The OC Register cites Joe Vranich, a relocation consultant, who gives a Top Ten list of reasons why businesses are fleeing California:

No. 10 is new: Energy costs soaring because of new laws and regulations. Commercial electrical rates are already 50% higher than the rest of the country, Vranich says, and Gov. Jerry Brown just signed a new law increasing the amount of power utilities must buy from renewable sources plus regulations for the California Global Warming Solutions Act will start soon.

The other reasons, Vranich says, are:
9. High and unfair tax treatment
8. Regulatory burden
7. Unfriendly legal environment for business
6. Most expensive place to do business
5. Provable savings elsewhere
4. Public policies and taxes create unfriendly business climate
3. Uncontrollable public spending
2. More adversarial toward business than any other state
1. Poor rankings for California on lists ranging from taxes to crime rates to school dropout rates.

“There is little evidence that California’s business environment will improve considering that the legislature in 2011 has voted down litigation reform, tax-increase plans are underway, and a host of new regulations are to be implemented that will increase costs for literally every business,” Vranich says.

California is shedding business because California is making it increasingly cost prohibitive to operate a business within its borders. And that means California, a very high-tax state, is losing massive amounts of tax revenue — and jobs. All while California continues to profligately spend money like there’s no tomorrow. California Legislators and other government officials even came down here to Texas to find out how Texas is luring businesses away from California.

When California politicians want to visit California jobs, they increasingly have to leave California to do so. That’s why Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom traveled with a small entourage of other Golden State politicians to Texas, the biggest beneficiary of California’s economic policies. So many jobs have fled California to Texas, John Fund writes for the Wall Street Journal, that the governing class needed lessons from Texas Governor Rick Perry on how not to repel business:

“We came to learn why they would pick up their roots and move in order to grow their businesses,” says GOP Assemblyman Dan Logue, who organized the trip. “Why does Chief Executive magazine rate California the worst state for job and business growth and Texas the best state?”

The contrast is undeniable. Texas has added 165,000 jobs during the last three years while California has lost 1.2 million. California’s jobless rate is 12% compared to 8% in Texas.

“I don’t see this as a partisan issue,” Mr. Newsom told reporters before the group met with Texas Republican Gov. Rick Perry. The former San Francisco mayor has many philosophical disagreements with Mr. Perry, but he admitted he was “sick and tired” of hearing about the governor’s success luring businesses to Texas.

And, of course, businesses aren’t all that’s fleeing the People’s Republik of Kalifornia. People are, too.

The Top Three states in tax revenue lost (1999 – 2009) due to people moving away:
New York
California
Illinois

The Top Three states in tax revenue gained (1999 – 2009) due to people moving in:
Florida
Arizona
Texas

While New York, California, and Illinois all have very high income tax rates, Florida and Texas have no income tax.

For those of you moving from California to Texas (really from any Leftist state to Texas), The Grouch at Right Truth has a little language translation aid for you.